Raj Kumar Dhiman vs Union Of India & Ors.

By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)

Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents.

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging the order dated 01.02.2025 passed by respondent No.3, whereby the applicant has been awarded the penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect, as well as the appellate order dated 03.07.2026 passed by respondent No.2, whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant against the aforesaid order has been rejected.

The brief facts, as borne out from the Original Application, are that the applicant, while working as Sub-Postmaster, Saharanpur Kutchery Sub Post Office, was also holding the office of Zila Mantri of Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, Saharanpur. On 16.12.2024, the applicant made a representation/complaint addressed to the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India in respect of the alleged conduct of Shri Suraj Kumar Sharma, the then Senior Postmaster, City Post Office, Meerut. A copy of the said representation was also submitted in the office of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Saharanpur Division.

On the basis of the aforesaid conduct, a charge memorandum dated 24.12.2024 was issued to the applicant under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The substance of the charge was that the applicant, while being a government servant, had made direct correspondence with the Prime Minister's Office in respect of a matter connected with the Department without following the prescribed procedure and thereby acted in a manner alleged to be unbecoming of a government servant. The charge memorandum referred to Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

The applicant thereafter submitted representations dated 02.01.2025, 08.01.2025 and 23.01.2025, requesting that the charge memorandum be supplied in Hindi. The respondents informed him that he had passed the Intermediate Examination with English as a subject. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 01.02.2025, imposing the penalty of withholding of the applicant’s upcoming increment for two years without cumulative effect. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:-

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant preferred an appeal dated 03.03.2025 before the competent appellate authority. The appellate authority, after considering the appeal, rejected the same vide order dated 03.07.2026. The relevant portion of the appellate order reads as under:-

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the representation dated 16.12.2024 was made in his capacity as Zila Mantri of Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh and in public interest and, therefore, could not constitute misconduct. It is further submitted that the representation was not made in his official capacity and Rule 20 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 was wrongly invoked. The applicant has also raised the plea of bias on the ground that the officer against whom the representation was made subsequently issued the charge memorandum and passed the punishment order.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, opposed the Original Application and submitted that the disciplinary action was taken in accordance with the applicable rules. He submitted that the applicant, being a government servant, was bound by the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and the representation dated 16.12.2024, addressed directly to the Hon'ble Prime Minister, was rightly treated as conduct unbecoming of a Government servant. He, therefore, submitted that no interference with the impugned orders is warranted.

We have carefully considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and examined the representation dated 16.12.2024, which forms the basis of the disciplinary action. For the ready reference the representation moved by the applicant is reproduced as below:

At this stage, it would be useful to notice the relevant statutory provisions i.e. Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which provides:

The applicant has placed particular reliance upon Rule 20 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which is reproduced as below:-

The applicant seeks to distinguish his case by contending that the representation was made in his capacity as Zila Mantri of Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh and in public interest. We are unable to accept that merely describing the representation as a public-interest complaint or stating the capacity in which it was made takes the applicant outside the discipline applicable to a Government servant.

The relevant consideration is the nature and manner of the act committed by the applicant. The record shows that the representation was directly addressed to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India in relation to a matter concerning the Department. The fact that a copy was also submitted to the departmental authority does not alter the nature of the representation. The applicant, while continuing as a Government servant, was required to abide by the standards of conduct applicable to him.

We, therefore, find no merit in the contention that the disciplinary action fails merely because Rule 20 was not the substantive provision of the charge. The charge memorandum specifically referred to Rule 3(1)(iii), and the question before us is whether the conclusion that the aforesaid conduct was unbecoming of a Government servant suffers from any legal infirmity. On examination of the representation itself, we find no such infirmity.

The plea of bias/nemo judex in causa sua also does not merit acceptance. The mere fact that the applicant had made a representation concerning an officer does not, by itself, establish legal bias. The disciplinary action is founded upon the applicant’s own admitted act of making the representation dated 16.12.2024, and no material has been shown to establish that the disciplinary authority acted on any extraneous consideration.

The applicant has also questioned the non-supply of the charge memorandum in Hindi. The record shows that he raised the said objection through successive representations dated 02.01.2025, 08.01.2025 and 23.01.2025 and thereafter preferred an appeal against the punishment order. In the facts of the present case, no specific prejudice caused to the applicant in understanding the charge or in defending himself has been demonstrated.

The scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is well settled. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, the Apex Court held that:

The Court/Tribunal does not ordinarily act as an appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion for that of the disciplinary authority. Interference is warranted where, inter alia, there is violation of natural justice or statutory rules, or the finding is based on no evidence.

Applying the aforesaid principles, we find that the disciplinary action is founded upon undisputed material, namely, the applicant’s own representation dated 16.12.2024. We have also examined the contents of the representation and the relevant provisions of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The conclusion of the disciplinary authority that the manner in which the applicant made the representation amounted to conduct unbecoming of a Government servant cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary or based on no material.

As regards the quantum of punishment, the penalty imposed is withholding of one increment for two years without cumulative effect. Having regard to the nature of the misconduct and the limited scope of judicial review over the quantum of punishment, we do not find the penalty to be so disproportionate as to warrant interference.

Having considered the matter in its entirety, particularly the representation dated 16.12.2024, the charge memorandum dated 24.12.2024, the punishment order dated 01.02.2025, the appellate order dated 03.07.2026 and the relevant provisions of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned orders.

Consequently, the Original Application is dismissed at the admission stage.

There shall be no order as to costs.

All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.